national

Investigators obtain data recorder in U.S. warship collision

34 Comments
By Mari Yamaguchi

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

but it is uncertain if Japanese authorities will have access to U.S. investigation results because the U.S. military has the primary right to investigate U.S. warships 

I said this on the last thread but was ridiculed.

There is speculation that the Fitzgerald might have been temporarily unable to communicate because of damage from the collision, or because its crew was working frantically to keep the ship from sinking. Japanese officials say every ship is equipped with a backup communication system for emergencies.

Clearly either the US ship was not following procedures, as they should be trained to send out a distress call during an emergency, or their radios were jammed.

It's as if something was interfering with all the radio and navigation equipment on the US ship, and possibly even the container ship.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Clearly either the US ship was not following procedures, as they should be trained to send out a distress call during an emergency, or their radios were jammed.

They couldn't send out anything on the Navy networks because their radio room was damaged in the collision.  These ships normally monitor satellite circuits and others that keep them in constant communication with their higher ups.  They were unable to because the main radio room was damaged.  It would be interesting to see if they went out on normal Bridge-to-Bridge (VHF Channel 16) which is the international channel that is monitored (or should be) by the Japan Coast Guard and other vessels in the area with a distress call.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I said this on the last thread but was ridiculed.

As well should be again here. You have been reading too many Tom Clancy books.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Why would one be ridiculed for stating the fact that the US military has primary jurisdiction over its own under the SOFA?

It's as if something was interfering with all the radio and navigation equipment on the US ship, and possibly even the container ship

This is as good of a theory as any given the available information.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Burning BushToday 07:05 am JST

It's as if something was interfering with all the radio and navigation equipment on the US ship, and possibly even the container ship.

Like what?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just from the US Navy's lack of cooperation and slipperiness alone they are acting guilty as hell. No doubt there will be a cash payment behind the scenes and the issue will go away never to be publicly investigated.

As embarrassing as it would be i don't know why they don't just say they screwed up and move on. Humans make mistakes. I think what irks everyone is when they pretend they don't.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why would one be ridiculed for stating the fact that the US military has primary jurisdiction over its own under the SOFA?

Because as with previous posts on a different thread the insinuation was something straight out of a conspiracy theorist novel. Not about the SOFA

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The U.S. Navy still uses 2:20 a.m. as the time of the collision, but U.S. military officials say they have no intention to dispute the Japanese coast guard, and that the investigation will settle the issue.

U.S. Navy can't even agree on a simple obvious event as the time of collision with the Japanese coast guards with data recorder in habds, speak already volume on how opaque and long is going to be that investigation....I guess their report will probably state it was a weather balloon...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Maybe the headline should read,

"Investigators obtain (only one) data recorder in U.S. warship collision"

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It's as if something was interfering with all the radio and navigation equipment on the US ship, and possibly even the container ship.

Like what?

He doesn't know. None of us, even you lads that clearly have experience aboard boats, can quite wrap our heads around this. The destroyer is equipped with some of the most sophisticated radar equipment available and the freighter wasn't exactly small.

I know Burning posts some out-there things, but I did not get any insinuation of a conspiracy theory from his post above.

It is lovely to read people criticizing the US Navy for not having results of an investigation immediately, e.g., can't even agree on the time. Too many posters on JT seem to think investigations should take less than 48 hours.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Since both ships were traveling in the same direction, there are only two rules in the COLREGS that would come into play. 1. The first rule would be for two vessels in a crossing situation, since the US vessel was to the starboard, it would have to give way to the cargo ship. 2. The second rule would be for a passing situation, since the US vessel was being overtaken by the faster cargo ship, the US vessel would have to give way. I am speculating that the faster cargo ship was overtaking the slower US ship that was on an intersecting course. The damage to both ships supports this theory. It takes anywhere from 2 to 5 miles for a ship the size of the ACX Crystal to come to a stop and about two miles for her to make a 180 course change. Some ships in this jumbo class do not even have reverse engine capability to aid slowdown.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the vessels were traveling in the same direction and the U.S. vessel was damaged on its starboard side, how was the U.S. vessel to starboard?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The best radar and ships systems are absolutely no good unless someone is watching them and takes action. A ship on autopilot and 99.9% are; will blissfully travel on the input course until someone punches in a new course or takes the wheel. A poster on this subject on another thread made a comment about relying on a lookout's eyes over all the high tech nav equipment, well that is exactly what is required as a backup. Radar and electronics can see a gnat crawling across a supertankers hull at 20 miles, but it really don't care that the same supertanker is going to send you to Davy Jone's locker in a hour or so if you don't get out of its way.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Want to know why the collision happened? The USS Fitzgerald was assigned to be a missle screen for the USS Good to Glow Reagan. Now Google US Navy aims to sink radio^ active fleet and see if you can connect the dots.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Folks, what we're looking at here can be explained two ways.

A cascading chain of gross incompetence by several people.

Successful application of a Krasuha-4 type weapon by one of America's adversaries.

Take your pick.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Everybody in both ships know what happened and why. But we dont inow because they dont qant us to know

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It happened early Saturday, so it has taken five days to get the log book off the container vessel?

People died in this collision, so faced with the possibility of legal action, some reluctance to comply immediately with an investigation is understandable from the standpoint of the two ships concerned. Cover your ass first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Today  09:02 am JST

Maybe the headline should read,

"Investigators obtain (only one) data recorder in U.S. warship collision"

Two down votes? Did I get my facts wrong?

Until we see the data recordings from both ships and statements from both crews, none of us will know what caused this collision.

Hopefully, this tragic accident can be learned from so it's less likely to happen in the future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Does the USA ship have a data recorder? and who's looking at that data? I am surprised that a modern war ship that is fitted with the latest radar equipment, infared, satellite, computers, and god knows what other equipment, it seems that they don't have an accurate clock on board, how on earth can such a simple thing be about 50 minutes out. I hope that there is not a cover up, as the families of the lost crew deserve a proper send off, with full military honours, at the governments expense. the police have highly trained police officers to undertake high speed car chase, even these guys have accidents, no one is perfect, I just hope its not a cover up to save face.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Stuart, take it as a badge of honour. Look on the bright side, you got 2 pluses too! There are (grumpy) people here who vote on other things, not just the central idea in a post.

I got voted down last week for saying that judging by the damage, the ships must have come together, containership portside to Aegis starboard, allowing for either a same-speed or overtaking collision scenario.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If indeed the NAVY were disabled by a sophisticated jamming system the NAVY would never admit to that publicly. Moral would suffer a huge blow and many high level people would have some explaining to do.

Let's review:

The collision itself - highly improbable

The failure of both ships to communicate - plausible, but again requires explanation

The discrepancy in the timing of the accident - What is going on here?

The reluctance of the US NAVY to allow the Japanese Coast Guard to investigate anything related to the US side of this incident.

Do the math kids.

The technology to render the US ship impotent is old hat in Russia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3151339/Russia-claims-developed-superweapon-capable-switching-foreign-satellites-enemy-weapons.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Read on CNN.

The communications were taken out by the impact, Crew had to rely on cel-phones to reach contacts.

Looks like the tanker was on autopilot, struck unnoticed by crew.

Crew did a manual 180 u-turn when they noticed.

Water flooded the sleeping quarters and deeper into the navy ship.

Crew had to close hatches to prevent further flooding.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

since the US vessel was being overtaken by the faster cargo ship, the US vessel would have to give way

Please read the COLREGS again. In an overtaking situation it is the OVERTAKING vessel that has to give way, which in your scenario would be the CARGO ship NOT the destoyer.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

USS Good to Glow Reagan

What the **** is this supposed to mean?

The collision itself - highly improbable

Actually it is not. All the tech in the world means nothing if the people whose job is to monitor it are not paying attention. I am surprised it does not happen more often, especially in even more crowded waters.

Clearly either the US ship was not following procedures, as they should be trained to send out a distress call during an emergency, or their radios were jammed.

Clearly you do not know much about anything. The first priority is to, as the Navy says, fight the ship. If means of communication were available I'm sure they would have been used. Then again ......

It's as if something was interfering with all the radio and navigation equipment on the US ship, and possibly even the container ship.

.....the could have been jammed.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The communications were taken out by the impact, Crew had to rely on cel-phones to reach contacts.

A comical assertation.

Was the bridge damaged at all?

Cover up.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Communications is NOT on any bridge.

Guess the Navy don't know what they reported to the media.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Burning Bush

Let's review:...Do the math kids.

You're missing some important bits of info.

We're told the ship's commander was injured in the incident and taken to hospital. So possibly piracy by the crew or the commander's mind was taken over by aliens or North Koreans. All these possibilities would explain the silence of the U.S. military. My nurse agrees.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Stuart haywardToday  02:41 pm JST Until we see the data recordings from both ships and statements from both crews, none of us will know what caused this collision.

Oceans are large. Even with U.S. Navy having advanced technology, it's only good as what you can use and monitor. They were asleep. The U.S. military with volunteer forces are not good enough in today's problems. If they want to be combat ready, the enactment of draft is necessary.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

why we buy these dingies?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp330Today  03:58 pm JST

Oceans are large. Even with U.S. Navy having advanced technology, it's only good as what you can use and monitor. They were asleep. The U.S. military with volunteer forces are not good enough in today's problems. If they want to be combat ready, the enactment of draft is necessary.

Oceans are large. OK

As I said, if we learn about what went wrong, we are LESS LIKELY to have the same accident in the future. I didn't say it will never happen again.

Do you have proof they were asleep? And who are they?

Lastly, I have no idea what the mandatory draft has to do with this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway this has all the makings for a good conspiracy theory and cover-up. (Except that all they have to do is check the GoPro dashcam.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The NAVY knows full well that that the accident occurred at 13:30. They also know that they didn't report that accident until 14:20, which puts them in serious violation of several maritime laws and protocols.

By issuing an "official" accident time of 14:20 the NAVY is absolving itself of any legal wrongdoing. Afterall, what law was broken if the official Navy accident time matches the official records of the Japanese Coast Guard which shows the accident first being reported at 14:20.

Due to the SOFA, the US NAVY will indeed get away with this legal circumvent.

However, everybody knows that the NAVY is openly lying through their teeth, which damages their reputation, however the NAVY seems willing to accept that rather than have any scrutiny put on what really caused that accident and why they didn't radio in for help.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

To early to began "armchair'ing" how the incident occurred. It's best to wait for information released by an investigation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The U.S. military with volunteer forces are not good enough in today's problems. If they want to be combat ready, the enactment of draft is necessary.

So volunteers who WANT to be there aren't good, BUT if they draft people who DON'T want to be there then they will be better soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen? I must be missing something because logic and common sense says that people who want to be doing a job will do better than people being forced to do a job.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites